Ah I don't know where it is, but I used to do photo research for a magazine, and there's a "for profit" clause that says that (paraphrasing) if it is for profit, it is not categorized as education. I'm sorry, but I haven't done that kind of work in years, so don't have the websites linked anywhere. I'd be interested in rules have changed, though.

Again, as I posted earlier (and there is no suggestion either way in the article):

IF the textbook had been sold "open market" (you could go to an outside bookstore and buy a copy even if you weren't a student at the hagwon) then fair use does not apply.

IF the "textbook" was strictly used "in house" in a properly licensed (by the MOE) educational institution (which is what most legal hagwons are) then fair use probably applies.

.

So I completely rip off a restaurant chain's recipe, even using the same name for the product. I don't sell it in stores or anything, but if you come to my restaurant and eat in, you can order the product.

The texts may be in house, but any Kim, Cho, or Lee can sign up and become a student. It's a for-profit business masquerading as a school.

What about korean co-teachers copying all my games and lesson plans?
Then gossiping amongst eachother that foreign teachers are inept and unqualified?

Copying foreign products without compensation is part of Korean nationalism. Just rip them off and claim them as your own...because non-koreans are not worthy of basic rights.

It's probably in your contract that anything you produce for the school is their property. It's an industry norm I think. On a side note I remember some adult institutes in Italy used to photocopy Headway or whatever, put their logo on the front and pass them off as their own 'free' text book given to all the students who enrolled.

Ah I don't know where it is, but I used to do photo research for a magazine, and there's a "for profit" clause that says that (paraphrasing) if it is for profit, it is not categorized as education. I'm sorry, but I haven't done that kind of work in years, so don't have the websites linked anywhere. I'd be interested in rules have changed, though.

Again, as I posted earlier (and there is no suggestion either way in the article):

IF the textbook had been sold "open market" (you could go to an outside bookstore and buy a copy even if you weren't a student at the hagwon) then fair use does not apply.

IF the "textbook" was strictly used "in house" in a properly licensed (by the MOE) educational institution (which is what most legal hagwons are) then fair use probably applies.

.

So I completely rip off a restaurant chain's recipe, even using the same name for the product. I don't sell it in stores or anything, but if you come to my restaurant and eat in, you can order the product.

The texts may be in house, but any Kim, Cho, or Lee can sign up and become a student. It's a for-profit business masquerading as a school.

Materials for educational use a classroom are specifically listed and even though a hagwon is a business for profit it is still properly licensed (by the MOE) as an educational facility and as such qualifies under the fair use provisions of international copyright laws.

AND

They may in fact be liable for copyright infringement but there wasn't enough information in the article to make a valid judgement either way - just speculation on our part but from what was written I wouldn't bet against the hagwon.

The Economist submitted photos to the court showing that the school had used its articles in its textbooks. They also reportedly used them for secondary content such as videos and promotional materials.

An official from the hagwon in question, however, told the Chosun Ilbo that while they did print out Economist articles for use in their advanced class and sell texts books with the articles internally ...

The hagwon has no leg to stand on. It was obviously a TOEIC book and they got a good amount of the texts from THE ECONOMIST without bothering to put any time into it themself. The hagwon would have made up the questions though which would have taken some time.

Then they would have sold the book and made a profit. They did not need the book as course materials as there thousands upon thousands of such books available.

Every hagwon just wants to make their own to cut out the middle man (steal some content) and make money.

That is what they did. Stealing pure and simple. They deserve to be fined.

Notice they never defended themselves when asked. Still I don''t expect the wet bus ticket to hurt them.

Fair use not only depends on who is doing the copying and for what purpose but also, in practice, the quantity. I could probably use a copy of an article in my classroom but wholesale copying would get me in legal trouble.